Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the return payload, discloses the v1 caveat that "changed" is false until a re-census bumps the version, and states "Free, no API key." Missing are polling cadence, token expiry, and any error behavior, which matter for a poll-style operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields (necessary since there is no output schema), then the v1 caveat and cost. The middle sentence is a long comma-laden enumeration but every clause carries information the agent would otherwise lack.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers return values, the census-static limitation, and access cost, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits polling frequency expectations, token lifetime, and failure modes, leaving a modest gap for an operation that is inherently repeated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including a full brand enum list and the token's origin. The description only re-states that the token comes from the intent receipt, adding no format, validation, or scoping detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Poll a notify token from an intent receipt for door-state changes at a brand's Outpost") and ties it to the registration artifact produced by register_intent, which separates it from the direct-read sibling get_outpost_door_state. An agent can tell what this tool does and what input lineage it expects without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite is explicit: the token comes from an intent receipt, so usage follows register_intent, and the "changed since your registration" field telegraphs the wait-for-change use case. It does not explicitly contrast with get_outpost_door_state or say when a direct state read is preferable, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.